hmmm...
England could host World Twenty20
- Thread starter GiggsysGirl
- Start date
hmmm...
Twenty20 is rubbish.
First 60 overs were downgraded to 50... Now this... What's next?! 5 over games?!
First 60 overs were downgraded to 50... Now this... What's next?! 5 over games?!
It's not rubbish, it's a great deal of fun for the casual cricket fan.
The missus hates Test cricket because it takes ages, but loves Twenty20 because the batsmen attack a hell of a lot more.
The missus hates Test cricket because it takes ages, but loves Twenty20 because the batsmen attack a hell of a lot more.
It's all a bit of fun, people shouldn't take it too seriously.
Well, it's like a combination of the first 15 and the last 10 overs of an ODI... only that it's 5 overs too short. Completely pointless IMHO.
No one'll deny that it's fun, some of us are just worried it'll have lasting effects.
Melbourne Red said:
How so?
Not sure there should be Twenty20 world cup. But I dont think it is such a bad idea if it was a Commonwealth game. Might strike up interest there.
Its better to re introduce the sport again in the Olympics and Commonwealth in the 20-20 format.
Dubai_Devil said:
At this point it's a good way to attract the part timers and fill up the coffers. But I if enough of it is played, people's expectations of cricket will be informed by a version of it which compromises technique in favour of golf shots, and effectively renders the bowler's presence unneccessary, it'll have lasting effects on the way the game is played.
I think something similar resulted from the saturation of the 50 over stuff, and while admittedly it's made test cricket a lot more exciting, it's largely responsible for crowds staying away from test matches in most countries.
I think in the long run it'll be responsible for ever shortening attention spans and continue the erosion of Test Cricket's status.
Probably getting a bit carried away though. Interest in it might fizzle out completely once the novelty wears off.
I agree with MR. It shouldn't go beyong 50 over matches.
Exactly. I dont think any of us mind 20 overs cricket, batsman slogging, its short and fun. But the problem is how it effects cricket as a whole. The ICC IMO already has enough on its hands in balancing out One day and test cricket.Melbourne Red said:
Personally, i like one dayers. Test matches are more fun. But one day cricket provides something different, close ODI's are amazing fun in thier own way. And i think its something cricket cant do without. Even when you look at it from a technical point of judging players, shouldnt a player also be judged on how fast he can score runs, not only the volume of runs? Same goes for a bowler, bowling a tight line and length and bowling economically is also an ability in itself.
IMO Michael Beven at his best was one of the best cricketers around. Even if he wasnt at his best tests, which i dont think he was, he had a knack of knowing how to pace his innings and chase total. Thats an art in itself.
Now its ICC's and the various countries cricketing bodies job to somehow balance the fun of One day cricket, still keep test cricket's original form in tact, and generate enough interest for both forms, so that one doesnt suffer at the hands of the other.
Melbourne Red said:
The erosion of Test Cricket status is mainly due to the doctored pitches and dull draws. If the ICC makes changes and ensure that all Test Cricket matches are made result oriented and convert them in to a four day format, one day cricket can be completely replaced with this 20-20 version.
Unlike football , first class cricket is the back bone for International cricket and, Cricket played at the first class level should be marketed to promote this sport among the non Test playing nations. There is no harm in changing some rules and fitting this 20-20 version if it could pump in more funds and attract crowds.
spinoza said:
It's rubbish, mate.
vijay said:
And here we have a spectacular example of the dangers of smoking crack.
4 day test matches indeed.
The point you raised about using the 20/20 stuff to promote the game out of it's traditional powerbases is fairly valid.
Is there a rule in the cricketing bible that all test matches should never breach the 5 day barrier? Previously it was like the matches continued till both teams were bowled out twice. In the 18th century underarm bowling was legal. Even the number of balls in each over has changed throughout cricket’s history. The earliest rules of cricket specified that four balls were bowled in each over. Later it was eight ball overs and finally it ended up as six.
Rules have been changed frequently to market and promote the sport in a different format.
I’ve already said this when we were debating on the other thread
https://www.redcafe.net/showpost.php?p=1589564&postcount=10
Rules have been changed frequently to market and promote the sport in a different format.
I’ve already said this when we were debating on the other thread
https://www.redcafe.net/showpost.php?p=1589564&postcount=10
Underarm bowling was allowed as well once. And we used to have two stumps instead of three. I think the game has evolved nicely. Leave it as it is. The one day game needs sorting out, though, if anything.
If 5-day tests were reduced to four, we'd have a lot more draws. What would be the point of that?
Vijay is an idiot.
Vijay is an idiot.
Slabber said:
Muppet.
Can you read?
vijay said:
Yes, you want to make up for the lost time by doctoring pitches so sides can't bat for more than a day...
Genius...
Slabber said:
You what?
vijay said:You what?
vijay said:
How are you going to ensure that 4 day Test matches are result orientated? A nice batting track isn't going to work.
Slabber said:
Try clicking the link in post #16.
where did I say that?
vijay said:
Why would I want to do that?
Slabber said:
To read
vijay said:
Why would I want to read your posts?
Slabber said:
Gimp stop wasting my time.
You are better at winding up people in the general chat.
vijay said:
...says the Caf's biggest time waster
Slabber said:
You appear to be fascinated by this product of your fertile imagination - What started these sick fantasies? Was it the fact that you have too much time on your hands or are you really in need of psychiactric help?
In any event if this stalking and similar theme is continued I will be approaching the mods afresh to ascertain why on earth you continue to be allowed to pollute this site. They may not actually have cottoned on to the fact that these days rather than posting anything amusing , ypu are actually putting people off joining in the debate on this forum.
Melbourne Red said:
I think it's one of Eric Van Coppell's.
Yeah, assumed it was from somewhere else
Its a rant from Eric that frightened Slabber some time back.